“I am a gay man; the sex I have is non-reproductive by definition,” Lawson tell Mic, adding that buying condoms and lube in the family planning section makes him feel “self-conscious in a way that heterosexual people [aren’t].”

Seriously?

Mic points out:

Condoms can, of course, be used for family planning — the intentional taking of steps to control the number of children you will have and when you will have them. Condoms are also a handy barrier to sexually transmitted infections; lube serves little contraceptive purpose, other than making sex more pleasurable. Classifying both items — along with the vibrators and small toys that increasingly occupy those same shelves — as “family planning” tools seems both categorically incorrect and an attempt to euphemize what they are actually used for: sex.

Here’s the thing: There are various reasons why a person might have sex, among them things like “having fun”, “earning a living”, “a strong desire to have an orgasm”. Sometimes, people might have sex specifically because they want to make a baby, but more often than not, that is not why people have sex.

Therefore, he believes, the sign should be changed to something more accurate so as not to come across as homophobic.

“Because let me tell you,” he wrote, “there are quite a few of us for whom sex has nothing to do with reproduction at all.”

Speaking again to Mic, Lawson says he thinks terms like “sexual well-being” would be a better phrase for drug stores to use because, he says, it “captures everything.”

“If you make little, small changes like this, to start to introduce the word sexual into public discourse,” he explains, “to introduce the idea that sex might be something other than reproductive or something other than sinful or disease-ridden, that would be really good, to gently introduce the idea that sex might be fun into public discourse.”

What do you think? Does Lawson have a point or is he making much ado about nothing?

30 Comments

Brody

1898

i’ve seen the “family planning” sign in walmart and always laughed it off because duh it’s walmart. i expect that sort of silliness from them

in other drugstores i’ve seen that section labeled as “sexual wellness” which seems more accurate and perfectly fine/inoffensive

the drugstore’s response to him is lame. “It has always been felt that using the word ‘sexual’ could cause offence or embarrassment to some customers.” really? if a customer is so fragile that they would feel “offended” or “embarrassed” by a sign with the word sexual in it, surely they would be too self-conscious to be shopping for condoms and lube in public. come on. does the husband say to the wife “sweetheart can we do some family planning tonight? it is my birthday after all…”

August 15, 2017 at 7:08pm

KaiserVonScheiss

Sounds like another loon who just wants an excuse to be upset about something. Sorry, but for about 90% of the population, it would constitute family planning.

Juanjo

In other words Jamie is just like you – another loon who just wants an excuse to be upset about something. Just saying.

August 14, 2017 at 12:08pm

ChrisK

It depends. Places like Target or CVS they don’t call it the family planning Isle. Just putting everything together which makes sense. Sometimes the condoms are locked up somewhere not even related to anything.

drewthemoviefan

“Sex is biologically for Reproduction.” I’m not saying whether or not I agree with the guy in the article, but your statement is flat out wrong. Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women are not having sex for reproduction.

August 13, 2017 at 2:08pm

Xzamilloh

@drewthemoviefan

He said “Sex is biologically for reproduction. What is so hard to understand about that?

August 13, 2017 at 3:08pm

Juanjo

The biological purpose of sexual activity is reproduction. The fact that virtually all humans also use it as a form of recreation is just another aspect. ChrisK is accurate in his statement

August 14, 2017 at 12:08pm

Brian-E

While this isn’t something for human rights organisations to get worked up about, and there are far more serious travesties being perpertrated than this one, I do think Jamie Lawson has a point. It is annoying to be treated as if your own particular use for condoms is unmentionable, as if you are some sort of illicit customer over whom a veil should be drawn.

PinkoOfTheGange

we will get right on that right after we convince the disenfranchised white boys that their path has been trod and it didn’t turn out well for anyone…care to help on something that really matters first?

Danny595

There are probably several thousand people in universities and colleges across the US, UK and Canada teaching “queer” studies and “gender and sexuality” studies and the like. And if you tallied up all of their achievements and accomplishments for LGB people and gay rights, it would equal zero. They are a complete waste of space.

Ummmm Yeah

Brian

He got his Ph.D. 10 years ago. Seems slightly too old to be a millennial.

Why must everything be about millennials? I read your comment and I immediately think of the ridiculousness of the “Millennials Aren’t Buying Enough Diamonds” investigation that blamed the downfall of gem industries on young people. You sound foolish.

August 13, 2017 at 11:08pm

Ummmm Yeah

Because millenials are vapid little twits that come up with stuff so stupid only they or the worst of any other generation will defend it.

August 13, 2017 at 11:08pm

Heywood Jablowme

If you click on the link, he seems to have a crush on James Van Der Beek. That kind of dates him.

@Brian: Millennials are ruining GOLF too! Good for them.

August 14, 2017 at 1:08pm

surreal33

Mr Lawson, the real issue that should concern is why so many gay men think they pop-a-pill (Prep) therefore, no need for condoms.

Brian

I’d like to see this guy’s attention shift to sex education. Many schools only teach sex as it relates to straight sex (if they teach it at all!), and that leaves LGBT kids behind. That’s a “family planning” focus that has actual consequences.